Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

Ya know what Jed, you're right---for the claimant. The critic's job is to point out the error.

You have not pointed out any error yet. You have only said you detected one with mathematics, but you have not told us what this error might be in terms of the physical arrangement of the experiment, or how it might be detected. Until you do this, your statement is not science. It cannot be tested.

Most of your previous assertions can easily be tested. So I suggest you translate the numbers into a statement about the physical equipment and instruments. Something along the lines of, "the numbers suggest an instability in the temperature measurement" (or whatever it is you have in mind).

Back in the Age of Dinosaurs, I used a software package called RS/Series extensively for data analysis. When I did MLR it had canned routines to step you through this process I am describing. It would literally look at the t (or p) values for each term and tell you whether you should drop it out of the model or not. When I figured out how to get some of this info from Excel for the post on that above, I did all 3 models (quadratic, cubic, quartic) and looked at the standard errors of the coefficients (which are used in the t statistic calc and from that the p). Turns out none of them stand out as heads and shoulders better than the other, which means my use of the three models to calculate power from T based on Breiting's data were all relevant, and the spread in P found that way a possible estimate of error in the computed P. Definitely need more data...(which is always the answer when questions remain)

You didn't answer the question... The non-waffling answer is that it wouldn't tell you anything. Although I guess when someone mentions a reliance on 'canned routines', maybe it's unfair to expect a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

In other words, simple piddling around with the calibration equation covered the signal detected. That means to believe the calibrations, we need a lot more info on how he chose his equations

2) Does the skeptic need to invent alternate laws of thermodynamics, statistical techniques, or invisible fume hoods, in order to help their argument? (Extra credit if they keep using guilty inverted commas to misdescribe it).

3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?

1) Do skeptics feel the need to besmirch the author's integrity? For example, by heavily insinuating that they believe the author intentionally fiddled their calibration curve:

You quoted 3 points I made with no technical explanation at all (which you apparently are incapable of doing), so let me add a couple of technical comments instead:

1)" B also tries to do the energy per unit mass trick..."

This has been an issue since day 1 of he CF saga. Does one use bulk or surface measures? Is the effect a surface effect or a bulk effect? One significant point from the Storms' work on Pt that I have previously noted is that Pt does not hydride. Therefore its CF signal must be surface derived. That suggests that increasing the surface area will increase the CF. So what do we see the field doing? First, they went to the codep process, which produces a high surface area, dendritic Pd. Next they went 'nano'. So B using energy per unit mass values is misleading. Further there are a lot of issues about choosing the mass to use (which I mentioned before, but that was a technical comment that Z probably didn't understand).

BTW this doesn't 'besmirch the author's integrity' unless you assume the author is incapable of making a mistake. This is called 'peer review'.

2) "I had to ask why he used a cubic equation...."

B doesn't say technically why he chose a cubic. My quick look suggested there isn't much difference in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order fits. So what's the problem in asking why?

3) "In other words, simple piddling around with the calibration equation covered the signal detected. That means to believe the calibrations, we need a lot more info on how he chose his equations"

See above comment. It is a technical issue so Z probably just doesn't understand...

2) Does the skeptic need to invent alternate laws of thermodynamics, statistical techniques, or invisible fume hoods, in order to help their argument? (Extra credit if they keep using guilty inverted commas to describe it).

3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?

I find that the fastest way to judge the quality of a report is to see how much it angers and/or threatens the ego of those odd pathologically-skeptical types.

Do you apply the same criterion to work outside of LENR, for example faster-than-light neutrinos? Or free energy motors based on magnets? Or cars that get more than 100 mpg with conventional internal combustion engines supplemented with engine-powered generators of "Brown's Gas?" Or for that matter, to Andrea Rossi's various incarnations of ecats? So you're saying those folks put out quality reports because those reports anger skeptics? Interesting argument.

So, no technical wherewithal used at all. Seems about right based on your contributions to this forum...

Ha, this coming from the person who thinks thermodynamics is an art that involves words and hand-waving? (And see link here for some technical wherewithal, where I explain the implications of the first law of thermodynamics to some joker).

3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?

You need to study up on chemometrics. But that is a technical area..

What does chemometrics have to do with the price of fish? You wrongly claimed that "The R^2 values are not adequate to distinguish which model is best - The t-values of the coefficients are needed" [ie. nonsense spoken authoritatively]... Then when I asked you "What extra information would the t-values give you, if both the data set and measured variable are the same?" You gave a long answer that frankly didn't make much sense, but can apparently be summarised as 'the computer gives me numbers'.

Of course, the answer proves the nonsense you spouted earlier about R^2 to be incorrect - But at least by answering it you'll get the chance to redeem yourself somewhat.

And researching a bit of basic stats theory would be a much better way of spending your time, compared to the hour+ you've just spent skulking around 'The Playground', no doubt trying to find an error in something I wrote. (Unless you're teaching yourself about the 1st LoT of course... an overdue move that I whole-heartedly encourage).

Do you apply the same criterion to work outside of LENR, for example faster-than-light neutrinos? Or free energy motors based on magnets? Or cars that get more than 100 mpg with conventional internal combustion engines supplemented with engine-powered generators of "Brown's Gas?" Or for that matter, to Andrea Rossi's various incarnations of ecats? So you're saying those folks put out quality reports because those reports anger skeptics?

Yes, I do, and I would... Assuming (of course) these "skeptics" are driven so crazy by whatever report, that they resort to inventing new laws of thermodynamics, unique statistical methods, and imaginary fume hoods in order to keep their knee-jerk counter-arguments alive for any length of time.

While generally I am not a fan of Shanahan in this case I must admit I am. This argument by those who want to be seen as having the prominance to 'annoint' their choosen recipes vs. the proper discussion of how signal must be very dramatically above noise to have any credence, is at the heart of this writhing field. That's the reason for the now decades old sage advice/demand of showing the cold fusion/lenr nuclear fire be accompanied by nuclear smoke/ash. That quintessential smoke is abundant gamma rays orders of magnitude above the noise, and the ash ,4He, similarly orders of magnitude above the noise, in repeatable experiments that produce palpable heat. A measly ~1 watt in any experiment, let alone a 350 C device, is NOT palpable in anyones book. The discussion of whether this miniscule heat signal is buried in the noise is appropo, and the annointed ones and armchair annointers must be questioned with a proper WTF.

Here's a helpful reference.

obfuscation

ɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/noun

the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation'

Russ - what are you doing? Beiting is a high integrity researcher who is seeking truth and facts around anomalies that have been revealed in his lab results. The technical challenge that has recently surfaced to his work will only lead to better and more determined research (and results in my opinion) on his part. This all started with "measly" milliwatts.

Those on the wrong side of history will soon clearly understand where they stand - into perpetuity.

I imagine you’d have more respect for Beitings work if he had never published any papers, relying instead on name-dropping and loose blog talk about supposed gamma rays?

Zeus46
: May be you remember the glowstick/mfp experiment. There were abundant gammas, but nobody knew what it was. The main problem is that people measure with low resolution in the wrong range and use standard methods to interpret the lines. Today we know that the lines are modulated by magnetic moments.

You have not pointed out any error yet. You have only said you detected one with mathematics, but you have not told us what this error might be in terms of the physical arrangement of the experiment, or how it might be detected. Until you do this, your statement is not science. It cannot be tested.

Most of your previous assertions can easily be tested. So I suggest you translate the numbers into a statement about the physical equipment and instruments. Something along the lines of, "the numbers suggest an instability in the temperature measurement" (or whatever it is you have in mind).

Jed, your argument with Kirk here is incorrect.

Kirk is claiming (correctly, AFAIK) that the reported results are 10X more sensitive to calibration error than you might think - pretty obvious given the experimental conditions where the signal is much smaller than the input power.

That means that a 1% error in the calibration, or between calibration and active runs (due to different conditions) could give the result. That is the range where no-one can be sure there is not some error without additional careful checks. Given the small number of cal points it is a severe issue, which could be understood more by comparing multiple calibrations under different conditions etc.

You are asking Kirk for possible causes for such a 1% error - this is silly. You can always speculate but the nature of such errors is that you don't know till you look for and close them. CF work is littered with such (good) practice where initial encouraging results are correctly clarified as one or other of a wide variety of errors. It also contains claims made where this careful checking has not been done, as here. They should be treated with extreme skepticism.

The constructive reply to Kirk's (helpful) critique is to put more effort into showing that the calibration constants remain identical to say 0.1% over a range of experimental conditions that encompass the calibration and the active runs. Also, do enough calibration runs so that errors in calibration are experimentally understood and minimised. Those are actually two distinct issues, both of which need to be nailed before these results can be viewed as other than likely but not proven experimental error.

You invoke expertise. But experts do not necessarily critique such results from the standpoint of someone trying to find possible experimental errors, especially when they depend on positive results to get funding for future tightening up of the experiment. That is just human nature.

You have a binary distinction of wrong or right on these things. In reality there are gradations: checked, carefully checked, very carefully checked. And some analysis as Kirk has done to indicate (no more) possible issues in the level of checking. Kirk's analysis by the way cannot prove experimental errors, it can merely point out that they might exist.

Kirk is claiming (correctly, AFAIK) that the reported results are 10X more sensitive to calibration error than you might think - pretty obvious given the experimental conditions where the signal is much smaller than the input power.

The signal is far greater than the noise from the input power. Input power is not noise. It can be measured with extremely high precision. The only noise from it is in the microwatt level. People often mistakenly claim that input power is noise. I am a little surprised to see you make this mistake.

You are asking Kirk for possible causes for such a 1% error - this is silly. You can always speculate but the nature of such errors is that you don't know till you look for and close them.

Until you find an error, you cannot claim there is one. That is not falsifiable. Any experiment in history, including Newton's prism experiment, might have an undiscovered error. A claim that there is an error must be held to the same rigorous standard as any other claim about an experiment.

The constructive reply to Kirk's (helpful) critique is to put more effort into showing that the calibration constants remain identical to say 0.1% over a range of experimental conditions that encompass the calibration and the active runs.

Beiting has show that the calibration constants can be measured to 0.1% over all of the temperatures measured in this experiment. The calibration curve is not perfectly linear. You might say the "constant" varies (to put it in a humorous way), but it always returns to the same value at the same temperature, to within 0.1%. In other words, a given temperature always indicates the same level of heat, and the same level of heat always produces that same temperature. He calibrated with hundreds of points. One of curves he showed had so many points it looked like a solid line in the graph -- as he pointed out.

Shanhan's critique is not helpful because he has not reduced it to an assertion about the physical experiment. He has found what he thinks is a problem by manipulating numbers. Fair enough; so far so good. However, all of the numbers are from instruments. If there is a problem, the instruments are not working, or the arrangement of the calorimeter is wrong. In that case, the calibration cannot work. Whatever problem there is in the active run, there has to be a way to demonstrate it in a calibration. In other words, Shanahan is saying there is a way to input exactly the same amount of heat into Cell A as Cell B (or Cell A with different powder), at the same temperature, and yet the temperature rises higher in Cell A, even though there is no extra source of heat in it. The conventional explanation, going back to the 1840s, is that a higher temperature is caused by an additional source of heat. Shanahan says there is a new, undiscovered way this can happen. He has to specify what that is, or we cannot distinguish his explanation from the conventional explanation.

A different temperature can only result from some physical mechanism. If it is no excess heat, there has to be more of the cell wall exposed (leaking more heat), or a larger more conductive wire going into the cell, or a malfunctioning temperature sensor. If Shanahan is correct and the numbers show an error, the numbers must point to some specific physical error in the configuration or instrument. Otherwise they are meaningless.

If the problem was only in the computation (the equations) it would have to show up in the calibration -- and it does not.